Modulartech Ltd Trading as Satworld v Commissioner of an Garda Síochána, Sky Ireland Ltd, Actavo (Ireland) Ltd, Ireland and The Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Stack |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IEHC 186 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [Record No. 2020 6741 P] |
[2022] IEHC 186
[Record No. 2020 6741 P]
THE HIGH COURT
Reasonable cause of action – Bound to fail – Dismissal – Defendant seeking to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim – Whether the plaintiff’s case was bound to fail
Facts: An Garda Síochána (the Gardaí) executed a search warrant issued by the District Court on 18 November, 2019, pursuant to s. 143 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, as amended. The warrant recited that the information sworn before the District Judge by Detective Garda O’Sullivan of Clondalkin Garda Station had satisfied the judge that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under s. 140 of the 2000 Act had been, or was about to be, committed at a specified premises or place, namely Satworld, Unit 1C, Citylink Business Park, Old Naas Road, Bluebell, Dublin 12. The warrant authorised Detective Garda O’Sullivan, accompanied by such other members of An Garda Síochána and/or such other person(s) as he thought proper at any time or times, within 28 days from the date of the warrant, to enter and search the said premises, to seize any copies of any works, articles or devices in respect of which he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under s. 140 of the 2000 Act had been or was about to be committed, to make an inventory or prepare other evidence of infringement of copyright or potential infringement of copyright, and to seize anything found there which he believed on reasonable grounds might be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings brought in respect of an offence under the Act, and to require any persons found there to give his or her name and address. The case of the plaintiff, Modulartech Ltd, against the defendants was that their actions exceeded what was authorised by the warrant, resulting in a trespass to the plaintiff’s goods. The validity of the warrant was not questioned. The plaintiff also claimed an order compelling the defendants to return the items seized and itemised in the inventory prepared by the plaintiff, as well as damages. Further reliefs were claimed against the first defendant, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána. The second defendant, Sky Ireland Ltd, applied to the High Court to dismiss the claim of the plaintiff pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s case as one which was bound to fail.
Held by Stack J that it could not be said on the face of the statement of claim that there was no cause of action pleaded as to trespass to the plaintiff’s goods. It was, in Stack J’s view, clearly pleaded that the goods were seized and retained in excess of lawful authority and that was a cause of action known to law, as is evident from the extract (paras. 28.14 to 28.18) from McMahon and Binchy, The Law of Torts in Ireland, (4th Edn., Bloomsbury Professional, 2013) which was handed up at the hearing of the application. Accordingly, Stack J refused the relief sought pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Stack J held that the plaintiff may well have a weak case in relation to some or all aspects of the matter, but it could not be said with confidence that he had no case. Stack J held that it could not be said that the issues in the case were so clearly settled in favour of the second defendant that the plaintiff’s case was doomed to fail. Stack J accordingly refused the application.
Application refused.
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Stack delivered on the 21st day of March, 2022
This is an application by the second named defendant (“Sky”) to dismiss the plaintiff's claim pursuant to O. 19, r. 28, for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this court to dismiss the plaintiff's case as one which is bound to fail. The proceedings arise out of the execution by An Garda Síochána (“the Gardaí”) of a search warrant issued by the District Court on 18 November, 2019, pursuant to s. 143 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, as amended (“the 2000 Act”). Section 143 of the 2000 Act, as amended, provides:
-
“(1) Where a judge of the District Court is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting—
-
(a) that an offence under section 140 has been, or is about to be, committed in, on or at any premises or place, and
-
(b) that evidence that such an offence has been, or is about to be, committed is in on or at those premises or that place,
the court may issue a warrant authorising a member of the Garda Síochána, accompanied by such other members of the Garda Síochána or other person or persons as that member thinks proper, at any time or times within 28 days from the date of the issue of the warrant on production, where requested, of that warrant, to enter and search the premises or place specified in the warrant using reasonable force where necessary, and to do all or any of the following acts:
to seize any copies of any works, articles or devices in respect of which he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 140 has been or is about to be committed;
(ii) to make an inventory or prepare other evidence of infringement of copyright or potential infringement of copyright;
(iii) to seize anything found there which he or she believes on reasonable grounds may be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings brought in respect of an offence under this Act;
(iv) to require any person found there to give his or her name and address.
-
-
(2) A warrant issued under this section may authorise persons, including the copyright owner or designated representative thereof, to accompany and assist any member of the Garda Síochána in executing the warrant or in collating any inventory or other evidence.”
The warrant of 18 November, 2019, recited that the information sworn before the District Judge by Detective Garda Christopher O'Sullivan of Clondalkin Garda Station had satisfied the judge that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under s. 140 of the 2000 Act had been, or was about to be, committed at a specified premises or place, namely Satworld, Unit 1C, Citylink Business Park, Old Naas Road, Bluebell, Dublin 12.
The warrant authorised Detective Garda Christopher O'Sullivan, accompanied by such other members of An Garda Síochána and/or such other person(s) as he thought proper at any time or times, within 28 days from the date of the warrant, to enter and search the said premises, to seize any copies of any works, articles or devices in respect of which he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under s. 140 of the 2000 Act had been or was about to be committed, to make an inventory or prepare other evidence of infringement of copyright or potential infringement of copyright, and to seize anything found there which he believed on reasonable grounds might be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings brought in respect of an offence under the Act, and to require any persons found there to give his or her name and address.
As envisaged by subs. (2), the last paragraph of the warrant stated as follows:
“And without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, said member may be accompanied by Mr. David O'Rourke being the designated representative of SKY IRELAND the owner of copyright, who is hereby authorised to accompany and assist said member in executing this warrant or in collating any inventory made or other evidence prepared hereunder.”
The plaintiff's case against the defendants, including Sky, is that their actions exceed what was authorised by the warrant, resulting in a trespass to the plaintiff's goods. The validity of the warrant is not questioned. The plaintiff also claims an order compelling the defendants to return the items seized and itemised in the inventory prepared by the plaintiff, as well as damages. Further reliefs are claimed against the first named defendant, but these are not material to this application.
The basis on which an application such as this may be acceded to by a court are well known. As regards the application pursuant to O. 19, r. 28, it must appear from the pleadings themselves that no reasonable cause of action is set out therein, and no analysis of the underlying facts or evidence is conducted. By contrast, so far as the application pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this court is concerned, the court may engage in a very limited analysis of the facts as disclosed in the affidavits. However, it is recognised that this aspect of the court's jurisdiction will be exercised only sparingly.
The statement of claim is directed to the events of 19 November, 2019, and concerns the execution of the search warrant and the transportation of the seized goods to Clondalkin Garda Station. Further particulars of the claim in relation to the actual execution of the search warrant were directed by this court on 12 April, 2021, and these were provided on 18 May, 2021.
Sky brought this motion on 6 August, 2021, grounded on the affidavits of Mr. O'Rourke and Mr. Damien Gilmore. Mr. O'Rourke was, at the time of issue and execution of the warrant, an investigator employed by a company related to Sky at the time and he acted as agent of Sky in relation to the events complained of. He left his employment in February, 2020. Mr. Gilmore seems to have commenced employment with another company related to Sky shortly after that, and deposes to his involvement with the seized goods from late July, 2020, again acting...
To continue reading
Request your trial